Should San Antonio Pursue Legal Action Against the UFL Following the Brahmas’ Relocation?
At United Football Media, we were just as shocked as everyone when the United Football League (UFL) dropped a bombshell on October 3, 2025, announcing its departure from San Antonio. The San Antonio Brahmas have called the Alamodome home since 2023 and will not return for the 2026 season. In its official statement, the UFL cited “stadium constraints” and a strategic shift toward “smaller, more intimate settings” as the primary reasons for the move, expressing gratitude for the city’s support while promising more details on next steps soon.
We were not the only ones caught by surprise, either. Local community leader Tim Morrow, who participated in community meetings with UFL executives, highlighted the league’s earlier commitments in a social media post. Stating that just 10 months prior, UFL President Russ Brandon and Head of Football Operations Daryl Johnston assured local leaders of their dedication to integrating the Brahmas deeper into the city’s sports fabric.
This decision has left San Antonio sports enthusiasts reeling, especially given the Brahmas’ consistent top-four attendance rankings in the league and the city’s history of embracing spring football—from the short-lived Alliance of American Football’s Commanders to the XFL era. But beyond the emotional fallout, a pressing question emerges: Does the City of San Antonio have grounds for legal action against the UFL for potential contract violation, and should it pursue a lawsuit?
The Contract: Grounds for a Breach Claim?
The lease agreement between the City of San Antonio and the UFL is at the heart of any potential lawsuit. Reports from July 2025 indicate the city of San Antonio had “an agreement with the UFL for the coming season and preparing to host the Brahmas again.” (Luca, 2025)
While specific terms—such as financial penalties for early termination, revenue-sharing details, or an escape clause—remain undisclosed, the city’s July 2025 statement confirming preparations for 2026 suggests the UFL had committed to the season.
The relocation could constitute a breach if the agreement included binding commitments for facility use, marketing support, or economic impact guarantees. Standard stadium leases often include provisions for damages in such cases, covering lost ticket revenue, concessions, and broader economic benefits to the city. San Antonio’s Convention and Sports Facilities Department manages the Alamodome and would likely lead any legal review.
The Contract
In July, when the relocation rumblings began and the League was completely silent on its intentions to shutter operations in San Antonio, I reached out to the City of San Antonio to see how much it cost the league to rent the Alamodome. This would be helpful information for San Antonio residents to know when deciding if the move was warranted and, more importantly, which leadership team should be held accountable, the UFL or the City.
The response I received is typical of those in positions of authority when speaking to the lowly peasants they lord over. In a neatly written document, they state that “the Requested Information constitutes commercial or financial information, the disclosure of which would cause XFL significant competitive harm. XFL has expended money and effort to develop and acquire its league structure, including negotiating and executing the Agreement and other similar contracts.
Releasing this information in response to an open records request would result in the very type of windfall that would have adverse competitive consequences to the party whose information was being released. Disclosure of the financial terms of the Agreement will cause UFL to have a less favorable competitive negotiating position for agreements in the future. Releasing this confidential information could give an advantage to competitors and other entities with which UFL enters into contracts by exposing the pricing and other financial details UFL consented to in the Agreement.”
Convention & Sports Facilities for the City of San Antonio
At the time of writing this article, I reached out to Richard Oliver, who is the Communications Manager, Convention & Sports Facilities for the City of San Antonio, and he provided me with the following statement: “ For three years, the Alamodome has enjoyed its association with the XFL and UFL football leagues. We’re disappointed at the decision to discontinue the Brahmas franchise but understand the reasoning behind placing the league’s games in smaller, more cost-effective venues. We thank the United Football League, the Brahmas organization, the players, and especially the fans for their support, and we remain hopeful that quality spring football will return to the Alamodome in the future. Moving forward, we will use this to bring more major concerts and sporting events to the Alamodome.”
Conclusion: A Case Worth Considering, But Proceed with Caution
San Antonio has a credible argument for contract breach, substantiated by recent confirmations of a 2026 agreement and the UFL’s sudden pivot. Pursuing legal action could yield financial compensation and restore some dignity to the fans and a city repeatedly jilted by spring football leagues.
The UFL’s reorganization is a clear signal of instability, so there is no time to waste if the city decides to proceed with a lawsuit for breach of contract. In the meantime, I invite San Antonio’s sports community to join me in channeling our energy into supporting existing teams and advocating for transparent partnerships in the future. The Brahmas may be gone, but the fight for accountability isn’t over yet.
References
Luca, G. (2025, July 24). San Antonio still on track to host Brahmas in 2026 amid relocation rumors for some UFL teams. Retrieved from San Antonio Express News: https://www.expressnews.com/sports/article/san-antonio-still-track-host-brahmas-ufl-rumors-20785034.php